Legal Research
Cases
W v Police

W v Police

Case [2025] NZHC 2279 12 August 2025

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

ORDER PROHIBITING PUBLICATION OF NAME, ADDRESS,

OCCUPATION OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF APPELLANT

PURSUANT TO S 200 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 2011. SEE

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND NELSON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA WHAKATŪ ROHE

CRI-2025-442-16

[2025] NZHC 2279

BETWEEN
W

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing: 8 July 2025 (via VMR)

Appearances:

S J Zindel for Appellant

A R Goodison for Respondent

Judgment:

12 August 2025

JUDGMENT OF McQUEEN J

[1] The appellant, W, was sentenced on 16 June 2025 at the Nelson District Court,1 following the entry of guilty plea on the charge of possession of a knife without lawful excuse.2 At sentencing, W’s application for permanent name suppression was refused. Interim name suppression was continued by the District Court Judge pending determination of this appeal.

[2] W now appeals against the decision to refuse name suppression on the basis he will suffer extreme hardship and his safety will be endangered if his name is published.

[3]The Crown opposes the appeal, submitting that the decision was correct.

1 Police v [W] [2025] NZDC 12911.
2 Crimes Act 1961, s 202A(4)(a): maximum penalty three years’ imprisonment.

W v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2025] NZHC 2279 [12 August 2025]

[4]For the reasons that follow, the appeal is allowed.

The offending

[5] On 16 July 2024, W was outside the Nelson Police station. He was walking along the side of the station yelling “fuck the Police” and “pigs” while kicking several windows along the side of the station. W continued to scream obscenities and challenge Police within the building while punching and kicking the side of the station.

[6] W arrived at the secure Police carpark gate at the rear of the station where he was approached by Police in relation to his behaviour. He began yelling nonsensical comments in an agitated state. Upon seeing Police, W reached into a backpack he was carrying. Police apprehended him immediately and while struggling with him, W was heard saying “I’m getting my knife”. He was taken into custody where a search of his backpack revealed two kitchen knives: one approximately 30 centimetres long and the other approximately 15 centimetres long.

[7] In explanation for his offending, W stated that he wanted to kill a “cop” or himself.

Decision under appeal

[8] The District Court Judge set out the charges and summary of facts, before considering the Provision of Advice to Courts (PAC) report. Of note was that W was 27 years of age, single with no dependents. His explanation for the offending was that four weeks prior he stopped taking his medication for his mental health, and on the day in question he took a cocktail of pills and then had suicidal tendencies. Importantly, the PAC report said no further mental health treatment or rehabilitative treatment is sought and that he was not currently a risk of harm to himself.

[9] In determining the appropriate sentence, the Judge noted that W fortunately did not present the knives to…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading W v Police

Details

AGLC: W v Police [2025] NZHC 2279
Case: [2025] NZHC 2279
Decision Date: 12 August 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

W, a young man with a history of mental health issues, was convicted of possession of a knife without lawful excuse outside the Nelson Police station. He was sentenced to community work and supervision, but his application for permanent name suppression was refused by the District Court. W appealed this decision, arguing that publication of his name would cause him extreme hardship and endanger his safety. The Crown opposed the appeal, maintaining that the District Court’s decision was correct.

The appeal centred on whether the District Court correctly applied the two-stage test for name suppression under the Criminal Procedure Act 2011. The first stage required the Court to determine whether the threshold for suppression had been met, specifically whether publication of W’s name would likely cause him extreme hardship or endanger his safety. The second stage involved weighing the competing interests of W and the public to decide whether suppression should be granted. The appeal was treated as discretionary, meaning the appellant needed to demonstrate an error of law, a failure to consider relevant matters, or that the decision was plainly wrong.

The Court found that W had established the threshold for extreme hardship, noting his longstanding mental health challenges, history of suicidal ideation, and the circumstances of the current offending. W’s mental health conditions made him particularly susceptible to publicity, and there was a real and appreciable risk that publication would lead to self-harm. The Court disagreed with the District Court's finding that the threshold for extreme hardship was not met.

In the second stage, the Court considered the open justice principle and other relevant factors, including the public interest in knowing W’s identity and the potential impact of publication on his rehabilitation. The Court concluded that W’s prospects of rehabilitation would be negatively affected by publication, and the potential extreme hardship he would face outweighed the public’s interest in knowing his identity. The Judge’s decision not to grant name suppression was therefore plainly wrong.

As a result, the appeal was allowed, and the Court made an order forbidding publication of W’s name, address, occupation, or identifying particulars pursuant to s 200(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011.

Orders